Memory Beta:Votes for deletion/Pretzel
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *To vote simly add "Delete", "Keep", "Neutral". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Nothing relevant to this site. -- 8of5 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Votes *''Delete''--8of5 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) *'Delete.' - Lieutenant Ayala *''Delete''--Emperorkalan 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC), changed--Emperorkalan 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) *'Delete' -- Captain M.K.B. Discussion *I'm starting to think these efforts to remove "irrelevant" pages (more accurately described as marginally relevant, IMHO) are consuming our resources in both dataspace and person/time spent on the matter far in excess of what letting the page stand would take. If we are in danger of exceeding our available space, then we can set up a "pruning" project and discuss irrelevancies of a whole list. If space is not an immediate issue, then let it sit for six months or more. If there are no additions or no hits, then there's a better case to be made for "irrelevency" (or at least redundant of MA's page). Is there some way to get hit stats for individual pages? I can only find stats for the wiki as a whole. A hit count for individual pages would also argue for or against relevancy to this wiki. But barring actual vandalism or spam pages I'm going to stand against these quick deletion motions over subjective relevancy. We all have better things to do with our time.--Emperorkalan 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) **If this were a thing that has a reference in our stated sources and we were having another silly argument about relevancy, like the chicken debarkle, I would agree, but it isn't, this is just a copy of an MA page without even an effort to try and justify it here. In this case it's not an issue of wasting space or how much the article might be looked at, it's one of the subject being outside of our stated sources. -- 8of5 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ***It's part of the "chicken debarkle" (and I wonder if Mr. Scott's Guide says if the Food processor units can make that ;), since MA's debate over its pretzel page came up there, too. Last I knew, our stated sources included canon, so I don't think that, by itself, is sufficient. "Just a copy of the MA page" is more to the point, and most of the time I might agree with that, but under the present circumstances I think deleting it now will simply exacerbate the current disagreement over where the line should be drawn. I reiterate my suggestion: let it sit around for a few months. If there are some license-related improvements in that time, all the more reason to keep it. If it does nothing but grow weeds the entire time, then there's a more solid case for deleting it.--Emperorkalan 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) **This is only relation to the chicken debate in that captainmike saw it talked about and in spite, childishness or smart arseing decided to make the page to see what reaction he could provoke. And he managed it, well done him. Last I knew our policy towards canon info was to include it when necessary or in addition to non-canon sources, in other words, a page should not be created solely from canon sources. It is true we actually have quite a few pages that have done just that so the line isn't clear cut, in building a full crew manifest for each series ship do we ignor canon only characters? In that case I'd say no as it would detract from the crew manifest (not to mention almost every canon crew person seems to slip into some novel). The only justification for pretzel would be as a food to list as being a food in the Trekverse, I think that is too weak a justification. -- 8of5 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) *'author requests immediate deletion' -- there's no need for this -- i said on the talk page that if the policy demanded deletion, this proceeding's uncalled for because I ok'd the deletion there. -- Captain M.K.B. ::There was a time when I would have deleted an MA copy straight off but the system has tightened up and there is some logic in putting it up for the vote, if someone knows of a legit reference having this page active highlights it's under scrutiny which might jog ones mind so they can supply said reference and save the page. Which is essentially what Emperorkalan is calling for, but I don’t fell leting a page do nothing for months will help that, if this level of attention doesn’t make someone remember something then they are very much less likely to do something when the page has slipped out of view. ::These pages don't just delete things, they can be saviours too, it isn't as if I put the page up as soon as it appeared, I used the talk page to scrutinise it first which as Mike said resulted in him wanting the page to go. -- 8of5 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) :::If everybody else is willing, then we'll delete the page after the prescribed 1 week, and the matter can be over and done with.--Emperorkalan 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Possible Copyvio Actually, there is another angle that needs to be looked at. An article simply copied from MA (as this one seems to be) represents a copyright violation. MA and MB aren't published under the same license. MA is under CCL, MB is under GNU FDL. MA can't copy contents from Wikipedia because they are under GNU FDL, or it is a copyvio. Just the same, copying something from MA to MB is a copyio. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC) :I have to say, that as a contributor, it is possible for me to dual-contribute, but only my own writing. in the future I will avoid bringing over Memory Alpha text that wasn't written by me, if that's what the community(s) decide is best.. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Of course it is OK for you to bring over your own writing, just as it is to do so to bring your own work from Wikipedia to MA. When it is someone else's work, it gets into a legal area where the decision of the community does not matter. For example, Wikia won't let me switch the license for Aircraft Wiki without getting the written consent of EVERYONE who has EVER contributed. Not good enough to get the consent of the active ones, it has to be everyone, unless I want to start from scratch. The reason is that you need the permission of all the original authors to publish their work under a different license than they originally agreed to. If you take stuff from MA that you did not write and bring it to MB, you are publishing it under a different license than the creator agreed to. I don't think the community has the legal authority to decide to do that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) :Irrespective of the legality I don't see why you would copy from other sites, I have a personnel issue just taking someone else work but beside that we have different focuses, it's inappropriate to copy another sites article because it isn't written from the perspective a memory beta article should be. :It would be good if we could gain a clear understanding of any copyright issues, but in the long run even if it is I ok I don’t think we should copy anyway. -- 8of5 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I agree. One of my fears when I get Aircraft Wiki up and running is people copying from Wikipedia. It will be legal, but it is not at all what I want to have happen there, for similar reasons (except for the perspective). --OuroborosCobra talk 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Rights as an archivist As a contributing archivist, I have the right to request that this page be taken down without any waiting period. It is my work and no one has to vote on removing it if I say it should be removed, it is an immediate process according to our deletion policy. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Admin resolution Deleted per contributor request. --The Doctor 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)